To:
keydist@cafax.se
From:
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date:
Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:24:48 -0500
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:17:24 PST." <p0510100bb860e797ece0@[165.227.249.20]>
Sender:
owner-keydist@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: From whence we came...
>>>>> "IMC" == IMC <Paul> writes: IMC> At 9:43 PM -0500 1/7/02, Derek Atkins wrote: >> I think we're already assuming EDNS0 and DNSSEC, which already requires >> support for >512 bytes (and provides a way of negotiating support). >> So, no, size is not (really) an issue. IMC> OK, I admit that I am a bit naive about DNS politics. I thought that IMC> the objection to >512 octets was regardless of EDNS0. That is, even IMC> though the end systems are supposed to support longer packets, the IMC> UDP fragmentation happens in the middle of the net, and the end I think that there are significant advantages to keeping things in a single packet, especially if is 1280 the real lower limit. I also also seen that there are significant portions of the network where TCP port 53 has been closed. Clueless ISPs. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [